John Kerry offends again . . .

Posted by: MattMac112

John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 03:03 PM

John Kerry today . . . <br><br><blockquote>The bottom line: it was wrong for America to go it alone.</blockquote><br><br>. . . minimizes the loss of soldiers from these nations:<br><br><blockquote>Afghanistan <br>Albania <br>Angola <br>Australia <br>Azerbaijan <br>Bulgaria <br>Colombia <br>Costa Rica <br>Czech Republic <br>Denmark <br>Dominican Republic <br>El Salvador <br>Eritrea <br>Estonia <br>Ethiopia <br>Georgia <br>Honduras <br>Hungary <br>Iceland <br>Italy <br>Japan <br>Kuwait <br>Latvia <br>Lithuania <br>Macedonia <br>Marshall Islands <br>Micronesia <br>Mongolia <br>Netherlands <br>Nicaragua <br>Palau <br>Panama <br>Philippines <br>Poland <br>Portugal <br>Romania <br>Rwanda <br>Singapore <br>Slovakia <br>Solomon Islands <br>South Korea <br>Spain <br>Tonga <br>Turkey <br>Uganda <br>Ukraine <br>United Kingdom <br>Uzbekistan</blockquote><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 03:22 PM

In terms of numbers of troops participating, United States comes first. Great Britain comes second.<br><br>... United States military contractors (mercenaries) come third.<br><br>If there is anything offensive, it's that George W. Bush insists on claiming international support while it was US and British soldiers taking part in the original invasion, US soldiers spilling almost all of the blood, and US taxpayers taking up almost the entire burden.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 03:37 PM

You moron...those aren't countries!<br><br>Coalitions are only built with troops from France, Russia and Germany....<br><br>
Posted by:

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 03:38 PM

"France, Russia and Germany...."<br><br>Oh, you mean The World!<br><br>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 03:43 PM

That's right....The Axis of Weasels!<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 03:47 PM

Ahh, you're right. When John Kerry talks about "THE REST OF THE WORLD", he means:<br><br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 03:57 PM

Don't forget Spain...oh wait, they pulled out after the Al-Qaeda bombing of Madrid....<br><br><img src=http://home.comcast.net/~mlselby/CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey.jpg><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 04:02 PM

Could you have least told us what John Kerry said today? Maybe he took your list and added the dead?<br><br>Dead soldiers in Iraq:<br><br>United States: 1,016 over seven thousand wounded<br>Afghanistan none<br>Albania none<br>Angola none<br>Australia none<br>Azerbaijan none<br>Bulgaria 6<br>Colombia none<br>Costa Rica none<br>Czech Republic none<br>Denmark 1<br>Dominican Republic <br>El Salvador 1<br>Eritrea none (Is this a made up country?)<br>Estonia 1<br>Ethiopia none<br>Georgia none<br>Honduras none<br>Hungary 1<br>Iceland none<br>Italy 19<br>Japan none<br>Kuwait none<br>Latvia 1<br>Lithuania none<br>Macedonia none<br>Marshall Islands none <br>Micronesia none<br>Mongolia none<br>Netherlands 2<br>Nicaragua none<br>Palau none<br>Panama none<br>Philippines none<br>Poland 13<br>Portugal none<br>Romania none<br>Rwanda none<br>Singapore none<br>Slovakia 3<br>Solomon Islands none (you're kidding right? Did they really send troops? <br>South Korea none<br>Spain 11<br>Tonga none<br>Turkey none (and don't you dare use our country to launch the war unless you come up with a couple of more billion dollars.<br>Uganda none<br>Ukraine 8<br>United Kingdom 65<br>Uzbekistan none<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Trog

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 04:07 PM

Well, you could say "the world that can actually help financially and militarily" and that might be accurate.<br><br>Since we've had such heavy casualties maybe we could pull out for a bit of a breather and let the "coalition" take care of things for a while. That would only be fair, right? I mean we've paid for nearly everything and all our soldiers are dying while hardly any other country has double digit deaths. What kind of coalition is this anyway?<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 04:17 PM

Hey Bryan . . . As the media (almost gleefully) has reported, we have now lost 1,000 troops during 18 months of operations in Iraq. How long did it take for us to incur 1,000 casualties in:<br><br>*WWI<br>*WWII<br>*Korea<br>*Vietnam<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 05:08 PM

Thanks for digging up those figures. They certainly make the case when it comes to horribly disproportionate commitments from the so-called coalition.<br><br>I'd bring up some contrary points for you since it doesn't appear anyone is going to challenge either of our points here, but devil's advocate is a hard case to argue for here reasonably. In lieu of that, I have a picture:<br><br><br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 05:29 PM

How many in this thread would gladly send their countrymen to their deaths but when it comes time to sign up what do they do?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 06:33 PM

Poly, you should just change your name to StrawMan.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: polymerase

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 06:48 PM

How is my first post a straw-man argument? My reply to the long list of coerced and bribed countries is to point out how little commitment all of these countries made. The cruelest but most accurate way of measuring a war commitment is to measure the height of the pile of coffins for each country. One could get a more accurate measure by polling the populace of these countries, none of which would poll a majority for joining Bush's mistake. But polling is subjective while dead soldiers are not.<br><br>My second post I could not make a connection to a straw-man since I give no argument at all but only throw some monkey [censored] back over the fence. Impolite but since this is the political forum, heads up! Incoming!<br><br>Do you know what a straw-man is?<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 07:19 PM

Since it was your first post I was replying to let's focus there...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>How many in this thread would gladly send their countrymen to their deaths but when it comes time to sign up what do they do?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Here is what I think you are implying (i.e. what I'm inferring). Your statement, restated with my inference is this...<br>"If one professes a belief in the Iraq war and doesn't sign up to actually fight in that war then that person is a hypocrite and possibly a coward."<br><br>So, before I go on how you respond to what I have inferred?<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: polymerase

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 07:35 PM

You in the cheap seats too? Yes, I am afraid that is what I meant although I am mistakenly pointing out the wrong monkey. Bush is the real piece of monkey [censored] who fits the description of chicken hawk perfectly. A rah rah cheer leader who thinks he is starting a war which is going to make him a hero but when it becomes a huge mistake and the fingers are being pointed he says he can't think of one mistake he has made. Someone who relishes the wearing of the uniform but avoids the fight and goes AWOL instead. But I will stop there to keep from being accused of creating a straw-man out of a man made of straw.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Trog

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/14/04 07:36 PM

That's entirely different than what I thought when I read that. I thought of Bush as a warmongering president that when faced with the threat of having to fight as a soldier himself took the easy road set up by his dad. But, of course, that explanation doesn't fit the initial subject of the thread.<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

800 LB Gorilla ... - 09/15/04 04:28 AM

<br><br>I'm happy to hear we're not going it alone ...<br><br>=P<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Additionally ... - 09/15/04 04:34 AM

What's really offensive is that 2/3 of those countries have either suffered no losses or don't even have troops in Iraq, yet you list them all regardless ... pretty callous and lazy of you considering those who *have* lost their lives ...<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 800 LB Gorilla ... - 09/15/04 05:26 AM

I guess I don't get it. If we're "going it alone" as many seem to contend, like John Kerry, then why is there even one death outside of US forces? While I wasn't looking did someone redefine the word coalition?<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: sean

Re: 800 LB Gorilla ... - 09/15/04 06:06 AM

given their number of deaths involved versus our numbers, i think the word, "token" comes to mind.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 800 LB Gorilla ... - 09/15/04 06:34 AM

A quick search for definitions of "coalition" and an article from an unlikely source popped up. The American Conservative has an article spelling out the details of The Coalition of the Coerced. <br><br>I was wondering when true conservatives were going to start breaking ranks from the obvious conservative fraud of this administration. I actually believe that some of the basic tenets of conservative thought are spot on correct. Unfortunately those few tenets are 180 degree polar opposite of what George Bush has actually done in the past 4 years. True conservatives should be revolted.<br><br>Pat Buchanan should just admit it and say he would rather have John Kerry as President. (Not really using Pat as an example of a true conservative but he sounds like one occasionally until he starts ranting about wanting government in your bedroom.)<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 800 LB Gorilla ... - 09/15/04 07:15 AM

I doubt the families of the 66 British soldiers killed would call their deaths "token".<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 800 LB Gorilla ... - 09/15/04 07:36 AM

Obviously not, nor is the death of even one Solomon Islander, were there one, to be dismissed. That's not the point, I think. Nor is the point the silly argument that some here raise that a "true" coallition must include Germans and Russians and French (or its corollary, that because those nations didn't participate therefore they're somehow disloyal to us). To me the issue comes down to what "willing" means in that presidential phrase, "the coallition of the willing." What was the quid pro quo that led to "willingness"? In my book, coallition means something very different from the lead nation bargaining other nations into agreement on the basis of self-interest unrelated to the matter at hand. Do we know what the Solomon Islands got in exchange, either in fact or in expectation, for their participation? And I don't mean to pick on the Solomons. The same question applies to any of the nations on the list, including Britain.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 07:36 AM

Oh . . . well, THEY'VE only lost one or two ... or nineteen . . . So you're saying it's ok for John Kerry to minimize those deaths by continuing to falsely claim America "went it alone"? <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 08:30 AM

And that is really the point, he minimizes the deaths of all those soliders by discounting their contribution in order to simply use the rhetorical phrase "Go it alone".<br><br>He can certianly argue that because the US is bearing the brunt of the cost for the war that makes the war invalid and he could certainly use the phrase "Coalition of the un-willing" since he is stating an opinion about the motivations of coalition partners, but to me "Go it Alone" does offend.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: sean

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/15/04 10:05 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Oh . . . well, THEY'VE only lost one or two ... or nineteen . . . So you're saying it's ok for John Kerry to minimize those deaths by continuing to falsely claim America "went it alone"?<p><hr></blockquote><p>paraphrased: "every single life matters."<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Hey Bryan . . . As the media (almost gleefully) has reported, we have now lost 1,000 troops during 18 months of operations in Iraq. How long did it take for us to incur 1,000 casualties in:<br><br>*WWI<br>*WWII<br>*Korea<br>*Vietnam<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>paraphrased: "well, deaths in iraq aren't *that* bad."<br>spin away. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 10:10 AM

[color:blue]So you're saying it's ok for John Kerry to minimize those deaths by continuing to falsely claim America "went it alone"?</font color=blue><br><br>John Kerry has nothing to do with my post, so why bring him into it?<br><br>My issue is with your apparently not even taking the time to find out which countries even have troops at risk in Iraq, not to mention actually have lost some of them there, before sanctimoniously being offended at a perceived slight on their sacrifices ... it kind of takes the force out of your point when you are being disrespectful yourself ...<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: MattMac112

non sequitur, Sean - 09/15/04 10:16 AM

n/m<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: sean

of course not, matt. of course not - 09/15/04 10:19 AM

nm<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 10:28 AM

No one is being disrespectful, Matt, except John Kerry.<br><br>Kerry's claim "going it alone" minimizes the deaths of those in the coalition who've lost troops. Those countries were willing to run the risks and stand up with the United States to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. That John Kerry so casually dismisses them, in that lefty conspiritorial kind of way, is highly disrespectful. Talk about "building repsect in the world." <br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 10:29 AM

I have heard clips of Kerry's over the last week commenting on your "going it alone" rant, and Kerry has said over and over and over that "almost 90% of the casualties...." and "almost 90% of the costs...". I don't think he minimizes the sacrifices of these other nations, I think he's explaining the overwhelming burden that we have taken on, and his point is that the international community should be contributing a larger share. He attributes that to Bush's policy, and as example on what could have been done gives credit to Bush1 in his building a more comprehensive coalition.<br><br>Of course you can pull phrases out of Kerry's comments and use that to make your point, but I think that's disingenuous. Rush Limbaugh loves repeating this claim of Kerry's snub of other coalition members' sacrifice. What's the point? Is it to make Kerry a liar, to make him unrespectful of those deaths, to make him more French? <br><br>Considering the situation of our troops in Iraq today, would it be a bad thing to have more international support? <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 11:18 AM

"Of course you can pull phrases out of Kerry's comments and use that to make your point"<br><br>welcome to Rove's world. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 11:35 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"Of course you can pull phrases out of Kerry's comments and use that to make your point"<p><hr></blockquote><p>Kerry's been making his baseless "go it alone" accusation for the better part of a year. I'm hardly "pulling the phrase out." Of course, was we all know, liberals hate when you take them at their word. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 11:54 AM

And Kerry has been very clear in his campaigning on this issue, and repeating it the way you are is disingenuous. <br><br>The exact same parsing of the candidate's words were used in the extraction of the SENSITIVITY issue. You know it was taken out of context and you know it is used that way to label John Kerry as a [censored]. Well I agree with Kerry that if we had been more sensitive and understanding of the culture we were simultaneously bombing the hell out of and expecting to win over their hearts and minds, maybe we would'nt be spilling so much blood over there. But that message gets lost, all you hear is Kerry is a [censored].<br><br>You see the media "gleefully" headlining 1000 deaths. I see the media presenting the tragedy that the 1000 milestone seems to emphasize. Rush sees it that way you do too, and his loyal 'new media' followers make this to be a cheap insult to those who disagree with this war. The insult is that you would even suggest that those you disagree with find "glee" in announcing American deaths.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 12:00 PM

[color:blue]No one is being disrespectful, Matt, except John Kerry</font color=blue><br><br>Obviously I disagree. Lazily isting every country in the coalition and claim they have all suffered troop losses is not only ignorant, but disrespects those which actually *have* had people die, IMHO ... that you use it to attack someone else of being disrespectful only makes things worse ...<br><br>And again, my point doesn't concern Kerry in any way ... I don't see why you feel the need to beep dragging him in ...<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 12:11 PM

Oh give me a freakin' break, Gary.<br><br>You want to get in to who is slinging what kind of mud? Show me the Republican leadership (Rush doesn't count) along the lines of Terry McAuliffe, who has accused the President of being AWOL and being a liar.<br><br>Show me the Republican leadership along the lines of Teddy Kennedy who has accused Bush of concocting the war for political gain.<br><br>Show me the Republican leadership along the lines of Tom Harken, holding press conferences saying the President lied about his guard service.<br><br>Show me the the Republican party leaders, along the lines of Al Gore, who charge the President of betraying his country.<br><br>John Kerry has said President Bush is unfit for command, while President Bush has repeatedly said John Kerry's service was honorable and he should be proud of it. <br><br>There is nothing analogous in the Republican party to Ted Kennedy, Terry McAuliffe, Tom Harken saying the kinds of inflamatory things about John Kerry that these leaders in the Democratic party have been saying about George Bush.<br><br>Sure, I'll call Kerry out every time for his untrue "go it alone" claim. I don't care how many times he tries to revise what he means by it. He's been saying it over and over and over for a year. And he's wrong. We didn't "go it alone."<br><br>And yes, the media was almost "gleeful" in the way they reported the 1,000 dead. It was almost as if they just couldn't wait until we got to 1,000. It was sickening.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 12:25 PM

Lazy <br><br>Acutally Matt, I walked a mile, mopped the kitchen floor and swept the house before making my post. It was hardly a lazy effort. <br><br>Regardless, my original post (which was all about Kerry, which is why I bring Kerry up - hope this clears it up for you) was neither lazy nor ignorant nor disrespectful. Actually, I'm suprised you're getting personal, Matt. You've always remained above this, which is why I've always respected your input. I guess some things are changing. <br><br>Back to point . . . My listing the coalition was to illustrate two points:<br><br>a). We didn't "go it alone"<br>b). John Kerry is minimizing the deaths of those coalition members who've suffered casualties.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 12:39 PM

Rush does count. He has the biggest on air audience, he's broadcast on the Armed Forces Radio, and he's officially on the Bush campaign as an advisor. I mentioned him to you in my last two posts because you previously told me you don't listen to Rush. I just want you to know that your point of view is shared by Rush and his huge audience. The talking point "go it alone" is one he is very fond of, and I think it's a blatant mischaracterization of Kerry's complete statement.<br><br>What is your point in the original post except to say Kerry does not recognize or respect the sacrifices of other nation's in our war with Iraq? I disagree with that opinion based on what Kerry is saying.<br><br><br><br>And yes, the media was almost "gleeful" in the way they reported the 1,000 dead. It was almost as if they just couldn't wait until we got to 1,000. It was sickening.<br><br>Which media was that? I saw it front and center on the Drudge Report for several days, that certainly was an effort to make it 'sensational'. I saw BuzzFlash headline it as a national tragedy. Who was gleeful? NYT? FoxNews? Dan Rather & Jennings & Brokaw?<br><br>When Ted Koppel did his tribute to the fallen soldiers it was viewed with the same polarity. I saw it as emotional, honorable and highly respectful. And then there were the others (were you?) potesting the exploitation and anti-war propaganda of the Nightline broadcast.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 01:04 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Rush does count. He has the biggest on air audience, he's broadcast on the Armed Forces Radio<p><hr></blockquote><p>Rush isn't a part of Republican leadership. His is an op/ed based radio talk show.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and he's officially on the Bush campaign as an advisor<p><hr></blockquote><p>He is? That's news to me. Can you show me proof of this? By the way, Ben Barnes, the guy Dan Rather interviewed on 60 Minutes to "break the news" on Bush's aready worn-out ANG story, is Vice-Chair of the Kerry Campaign. He's also contributed almost $100,000 to the Kerry campaign. Also, James Carville and Paul Begala have been hired by the Kerry Campaign and yet remain employees of CNN. <br><br>See any conflicts of interest? Say, do you think the NY Times will publish a "web of connections" article, complete with graphics, on this? Nah, it's not a web when you can draw straight lines from Ben Barnes to John Kerry . . . and James Carville and Paul Begala to John Kerry.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 01:17 PM

From his site: link<br><br><br><br>Rush Limbaugh Becomes Official Unpaid Advisor to Bush-Cheney '04<br>September 13, 2004<br>I made an official announcement to open the program today. I have become, and have been for a while, an official, unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, and we decided to go public with this because there's no problem with it whatsoever.<br><br>There was thought about my stepping down from the Golden EIB Microphone two or three days a week on the days that I was giving advice, but we decided not to do that. There's no conflict here. There's absolutely no conflict whatsoever. The line has been successfully blurring now for years and years and years.<br><br>I will not be giving up my precious seat behind the Golden EIB Microphone. I will continue to serve both functions with credibility on both sides, an official unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign '04, as well as your host here on the EIB Network.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 01:20 PM

That's funny. You can almost hear his pompous voice (complete with pausing) while reading that statement.<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 01:21 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Say, do you think the NY Times will publish a "web of connections"<p><hr></blockquote><p>Probably, but they'll do a better job this time since Jon Stewart was able to play the 'Kevin Bacon degrees of separation game" with Bush and the swifties in, ahh, one move. <br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 01:24 PM

And when will Jon Stewart et al announce they are official, unpaid advisors of the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 01:26 PM

Damn, that would be brilliant!!! <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 01:52 PM

[color:blue]my original post (which was all about Kerry, which is why I bring Kerry up - hope this clears it up for you)</font color=blue><br><br>I realize your original post was about Kerry. My reply was about a specific part of that post -- the implication that all the listed countries had suffered troop losses -- and had nothing to do with Kerry, which is why I was curious to see his name keep coming up in our exchanges ...<br><br>[color:blue]You've always remained above this, which is why I've always respected your input. I guess some things are changing.</font color=blue><br><br>I hope not -- I really do put effort in not getting personal, but sometimes something manages to press even my buttons ;-) Regardless, I never intend to be insulting, so sincere apologies if my posts came off that way ...<br><br>[color:blue]a). We didn't "go it alone"<br>b). John Kerry is minimizing the deaths of those coalition members who've suffered casualties.</font color=blue><br><br>Thank you for the clarification =) You might have said that to begin with and avoided my terrible wrath ;-) :-D<br><br>a) I agree with<br>b) I don't agree with<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by six_of_one on 09/15/04 05:02 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 02:21 PM

Gary . . . man . . . I hate to break this to you, but I think this is tongue-in-cheek humor on the part of Rush. I think he's parodying the Kerry Campaign's hiring of CNN's Carville-Begala. This reminds me of the time, when I had time to listen, when Rush endorsed Bill Clinton back in '92. <br><br>I think you've officially been had . . .<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 02:26 PM

HAHAHHHAA<br><br>This is a parody of CNN saying there's no problem with Kerry advisers staying on the air. It's a joke...keep listening to Rush and you'll have the punch line by the end of the week. <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 02:30 PM

The graphic gives it away . . . <br><br><br><br>HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 02:31 PM

"and there's nothing wrong with it..."<br><br>HAHAHAHAHAHA<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 04:33 PM

I am pleased to hear that! Touché. I'm glad you pointed that out because it got a whole lot of people, including myself, pissed beyond belief. Wow, you mean stuff on the Internet isn't always true --- Rush, that goddamn LIAR!!! <br><br>After the other week's interview with Bush it's easy to believe. My opinion is that Rush's coaching the President made it more of a non-interview, Limbaugh basically answered his own questions or made statements and let the President agree with him. Specially Rush clarified what Bush has said the day before to Lauer about the 'unwinnable' war. That sure set things right. After hearing that interview, believe me, as a non-Dittohead it's easy to fall this 'hoax' because Bush could really benefit from it. <br><br>Okay, he may/may not be a Bush advisor. I don't often get his humor because his brand of sarcasm is like, by comparison, what Al Franken's humor is to you guys. <br><br>Oye Oye Oye.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 04:37 PM

on the other hand, everything rush does is going to favor dubya over kerry. in the same vein, everything bob novak writes is either pro bush or anti kerry. there is no pretense about objectivity. in fact, the crossfire show is set up to create partisanship. this is what gives me the biggest chuckle about the guys on the left being reported to help the kerry campaign. what is a duh to me is a rush talking point that people actually fall for as being significant.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 04:38 PM

Not a problem Gary. It's easy to get snookered sometimes . . . <br><br><br><br><br><br>It sounds like you're an avid listener of Rush.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 04:40 PM

Rush is an op/ed radio talk show with an obvious and unashamed conservative slant. Dan Rather is *supposed* to be an objective news reporter . . . and, as we've seen . . . <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 04:56 PM

Everything else I said about Rush is true! <br>The exclusive deal with Armed Forces Radio sucks, it needs to be fixed so there's some balance.<br><br>I'm in the car about 30-45 min each day. AM radio offers me the wide options, a diverse spectrum of Rush, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, North, Ingram and nothing else. I love politics, so I listen. So it's only by fate which time of day I'm on the road that depends who gets to piss me off that day. That's really the only time I listen to radio unless it's streaming online.<br><br>From this liberal's point of view:<br><br>Savage is scary, no doubt about it he must be a god to the Freepers. How to deal with Iraq..... nuke 'em. Even his callers are scary, specially the one's that would call in to boast how they got arrested for harassing a theater full of liberals at a F911 screening.<br><br>Hannity and Rush can be entertaining so I listen. Laura Ingram is probably the most unfunny person on radio, but she keeps trying so hard to be funny. bleh. O'Reilly I think is the best of the bunch.<br><br>I think I get the basic schtick of all these guys. Elite media, lunatic liberals, blame-America-first-freedom-haters, Kerry/democrats/liberals are the enemy. Hey, sometimes they actually have a good interview (Hannity interviewing Lieberman for example).<br><br><br>I can only get Air America online, so I get to hear Franken maybe a few morning each week. I love his show. I've listened only a few times to Randi Rhodes and don't care for her.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 04:58 PM

Rather??? i thought limbaugh was making fun of CNN and the two crossfire hosts joining kerry's campaign and still working at CNN. dan rather is an evenhanded and respected newsman. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: drjohn

Re: Additionally ... - 09/15/04 05:23 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>By the way, Ben Barnes, the guy Dan Rather interviewed on 60 Minutes to "break the news" on Bush's aready worn-out ANG story, is Vice-Chair of the Kerry Campaign.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Did you see this?<br><br>Ben Barnes' 'Daughter': My Dad Lied About Bush<br><br>A woman purporting to be Amy Barnes, daughter of former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, said Thursday that her father had fabricated claims that he used his influence to get President Bush into the Texas Air National Guard 36 years ago.<br><br>In a phone call to WBAP's Mark Davis radio show in Dallas, Texas, Ms. Barnes told guest host Monica Crowley that her father was an "opportunist" who had lied about Bush's Guard record during a "60 Minutes II" broadcast Tuesday night.<br><br>Link.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/30/04 08:34 PM

Don't forget Poland. Oh wait. You didn't forget Poland. Neither did Bush. England and uh ... Poland.<br><br>I missed the debates but caught the Daily Show. <br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/30/04 09:36 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Don't forget Poland. Oh wait. You didn't forget Poland. Neither did Bush. England and uh ... Poland.<br><br>I missed the debates but caught the Daily Show.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Ooooh our sneering pile of steaming "sunshine" Paul has decided to chime in . . . A day without Paul's sarcastic jackass attitude is, well, a good day . . . <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: sean

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/30/04 10:14 PM

to be fair, the daily show made the polish issue pretty darn funny. jon stewart, trying to show the old 1-2 punch said britain with the ONE and, uh poland with the TWO following up on a clip of dubya trumpeting poland:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.<br><br>LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.<br><br>BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland.<p><hr></blockquote><p>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: polymerase

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 09/30/04 10:37 PM

Now I remember why Bush's line was so weird. Does anyone remember who the last presedential debater who forgot all about Poland? Gerald Ford. And Gerald is a brain surgeon compared to nitwit Bush.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 10/01/04 04:35 AM

Now now, Paul--control that sarcasm. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 10/01/04 04:43 AM

Sorry, nits are slandered daily. I've known nits a lot wittier than what I saw last night. Well, I didn't exactly see but it was reported unbiasedly on the Daily show. OK, maybe not so unbiasedly. Did Bush really go tharn and drool or was that a cruel camera trick buy the show?<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: nutty

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 10/01/04 07:23 AM

<br><br>You cant polish a Turd.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: John Kerry offends again . . . - 10/03/04 09:04 AM

An AP photo moments later ...<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener